I too have been shooting with the 5D II since it's release into the market, and my work flow in LR4 has always been roughly the same ... meaning I do not see a whole lot of difference between the 5D II files and the OM-D files. I cannot say that one is better than the other. I don't understand the problem you are having with the OM-D RAW files. I am not having a harder time with the OM-D files - they are just as easy to work with in LR4.

Bobby, perhaps, I might need to do side by side comparison when I get a chance sometime this weekend or so, but I'm "almost" sure about the difference.
Who knows? Maybe it's just my imagination due to the lack of om-d experience. We will see once I get to compare them side by side.

JochenbRegistered: May 25, 2010Total Posts: 1864Country: Belgium

sangdabom, I also think there's a difference (I also own the 5DII with ZE lenses).
However, I think the difference mostly comes from the lenses. The Zeiss ZE lenses on FF are special. Colors, contrast, microcontrast, bokeh,... The m4/3 lenses are very good, but not at the same level IMHO. When I still used Canon lenses on my 5DII results also looked more flat.
BTW: I found the look of the RX100 files closer to my canon set. That sensor is even smaller than m4/3, but has a Zeiss lens in front of it.
I decided not to care too much about the rendering, because for me the OM-D is about speed, size and joy to use.

I shot with the 5D II and OM-D just recently and didn't notice a difference in the file quality aside from some differences in color balance/temperature, and I explained why that was so. But other than that, I see no unusual difference in the image quality between these 2 cameras ... and they are both equally sharp too:

Jochenb wrote:
sangdabom, I also think there's a difference (I also own the 5DII with ZE lenses).
However, I think the difference mostly comes from the lenses. The Zeiss ZE lenses on FF are special. Colors, contrast, microcontrast, bokeh,... The m4/3 lenses are very good, but not at the same level IMHO. When I still used Canon lenses on my 5DII results also looked more flat.
BTW: I found the look of the RX100 files closer to my canon set. That sensor is even smaller than m4/3, but has a Zeiss lens in front of it.
I decided not to care too much about the rendering, because for me the OM-D is about speed, size and joy to use.

JochenbRegistered: May 25, 2010Total Posts: 1864Country: Belgium

bobbytan wrote:
I shot with the 5D II and OM-D just recently and didn't notice a difference in the file quality aside from some differences in color balance/temperature, and I explained why that was so. But other than that, I see no unusual difference in the image quality between these 2 cameras ... and they are both equally sharp too:

Jochenb wrote:
That's why I'm saying most of the difference might come from the better Zeiss ZE lenses.
The Zeiss 100/2 makro-planar wipes the floor with the 100L, IMHO.

I've adapted the ZE 100MP on my OMD and took some photos for fun. It really does render very nicely on the OMD, the detail and colours are great, notwithstanding the bad mixed lighting that I had to correct for.